> How could a pseudo-religion, fake by definition, be superior to
anything?

Well, I'd rather be a fake moron that a real moron, wouldn't you?
> And why should a religion be illogical?

Because if it deals with big issues as religion does and it is not
illogical then the word for that is not "religion" but "science".

> there are no evidence that some events lack of explanation,

Not true, as I've said before most numbers have no explanation, they
cannot be described in terms of something else. Some of the real
numbers like PI or e or the square root of 2 do have a explanation,
that is there is a way to generate them to any desired level of
precision, but they are the very rare exceptions; Turing proved in
1935 that the vast majority of the real numbers have no explanation.
There is no explanation for the non computational numbers, they just
are.

We were talking about physical events.

> so let us not bet on genuine randomness in nature prematurely.

I don't think you could call it prematurely, it took nearly a
century for most physicists to be dragged into the realm of
randomness and they kicked and screamed every each of the way, but
nature didn't care and felt no obligation to conform to human wishes
or intuition.

There is no evidence that in "nature" there is anything third person
random.

Bruno

John K Clark
--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.